Satirical trombinoscope for private use or well-
defined
“
public insult
”?
Seized by the former president of the Syndicat de la magistrature (SM), the Court of Cassation looked into Tuesday, December 1 on the case of the "
Wall of cons
", which had sparked controversy in 2013.
To read also: Affair of the "Mur des cons": the RN and Robert Ménard win in appeal
Dozens of photos of politicians, magistrates or journalists pinned to a wall: seven years after the discovery of this
controversial
"
table
" in the premises of the magistrates' union, the Court scrutinized the arguments of the former head of the SM Françoise Martens, and those of his adversaries.
Objective: to establish whether the existence of this "
wall
" is a "
public insult
" and can earn Martres, prosecuted as "
editor
" of the trombinoscope, a criminal conviction.
The highest court of the judiciary will deliver its decision on January 12.
It is a video filmed discreetly by a journalist from the France 3 channel, visiting the premises of the union classified on the left, who in April 2013 revealed the existence of this "
wall
", where dozens of personalities were pinned, essentially right-wing or far-right.
Targeted by fifteen complaints, Martres was sentenced at first instance for "
insulting
" General Philippe Schmitt, who had criticized the "
laxity
" of certain judges after the assassination of his daughter by a repeat offender in the RER.
This decision was confirmed in December 2019 by the Paris Court of Appeal, which then ruled in favor of two other plaintiffs, the mayor of Béziers Robert Ménard and the National Rassemblement (RN), whose complaints had been deemed inadmissible at first. instance.
A decision considered problematic by Françoise Martres' lawyer, Claire Waquet.
“
That there was something stupid, I grant you.
But at no time was there a criminal offense
", she argued, believing that the sign was in no way intended to become"
public
".
"
Madame Martres was quite simply trapped (...) There is no hint of publicity in this story
," she insisted.
The "
Wall of cons
" was in a room "
open to all journalists
", for his part assured the lawyer of Philippe Schmitt.
"
A place where you enter like a mill, you have to be serious, you cannot say that it is a private place
".
The publication of these images had tarnished the image of the union and the judiciary as a whole.
Even today, the right and the far right regularly invoke this case to denounce the supposed partiality of certain magistrates.
